PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATE SUPERVISION: A LITERATURE REVIEW

Colton TapolerKari Whaley

Common Trends• The Professional Relationship• Supervisor guides the student into field research through their own

expertise• Supervisor helps the student develop their research capabilities• Supervisor scaffolds the student to a point where the student is asking

their own questions and the supervisor’s role shrinks and/or adjusts• Supervisor serves as a constructive critic

• The Personal relationship• Supervisor motivates the student to overcome obstacles both

professionally and personally• Supervisor shares personal stories to show that the experiences of the

student in this process are normal• Supervisor assists with goal setting and time management• Supervisor promotes personal reflection and helps the student adapt

their lifestyle to include doctoral research.• Noticed Drawbacks• Supervisors sometimes feel inadequate if the student does not have

research interests directly in line with their own experience• Supervisors seek to blend personal and professional mentorship for

the best results

SUPERVISION IN PUBLISHINGThe literature review presented on this poster represents our initial findings in the supervisory practices of

doctoral factory and student reaction to their work as doctoral students with a supervisor, mentor, or combination of the two. We chose to look at four different areas of supervision: publishing, research, pedagogy and industry partnerships, to help us best understand the role of doctoral supervisors, how student development happens, and whether to not overlap existed between supervisor and student perception. In reviewing the literature for each section we were able to see where students and faculty members seemed to agree on the positive effects of a

supervisory relationship between student and mentor and we were also able to see where there was disconnect between the student and faculty member on this same topic. It is our hope that we will be able to expand on our literature review and to conduct our own independent research to best understand the supervisory practices that most enable students for university-industry partnership work and to see if an overarching set of best practices

for supervising doctoral students exists across multiple curriculum.

Supervision in PublishingCorbyn, Z. (2008). PhD students need help developing a 'writing voice', educationists say. Times Higher Education, (1864), 7.Kwan, B. C. (2013). Facilitating novice researchers in project publishing during the doctoral years and beyond: a Hong Kong-based study. Studies In Higher Education, 38(2), 207-225Lei, S. A., & Chuang, N. (2009). Research collaboration and publication during graduate studies: evaluating benefits and costs from students’ perspectives. College Student Journal, 43(4), 1163-1168.Supervision in ResearchFranke, A., & Arvidsson, B. (2011). Research supervisors' different ways of experiencing supervision of doctoral students. Studies In Higher Education, 36(1), 7-19. Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies In Higher Education, 33(3), 267-281Spillett, M. A., & Moisiewicz, K. A. (2004). Cheerleader, coach, counselor, critic: support and challenge roles of the dissertation advisor. College Student Journal, 38(2), 246-256.Supervision and PedagogyGrant, B. (2003). Mapping the pleasures and risks of supervision. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 24(2), 173–188.Grant B. & McKinley, E. (2011). Colouring the pedadogy of doctoral supervision: considering supervisor, student, knowledge and the lens of indigeneity. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(4), 377-386.Guerin, C., Kerr, H., & Green. I. (2015). Supervision pedagogies: narratives from the field. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(1), 107-188. doi:10.1080/13562517.2014.957271Zeegers, M., & Barron, D. (2011). Pedagogical concerns in doctoral supervision: a challenge for pedagogy. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(1), 20-30.Supervision in Industry-University PartnershipsHarman, K. (2004). Producing ‘industry-ready’ doctorates: Australian Cooperative Research Centre approaches to doctoral education. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(3).Lucia, O., Burdio, J., Acero, J., Barragan, L., & Garcia, J. (2012). Educational opportunities based on the university-industry synergies in an open innovation framework. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(1), 15-28. Malfroy, J. (2011). The impact of university-industry research on doctoral programs and practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 571-584.Manathunga, C., Pitt, R., Cox, L., Boreham, P., Mellick, G., & Lant, P. (2012). Evaluating industry-based doctoral research programs: perspectives and outcomes of Australian Cooperative Research Centre graduates. Studies in Higher Education, 37(7), 843-858.

BACKGROUND

Collaborations between universities and industry have grown increasingly popular, as doctoral students seek skills and accreditations to also operate in industry.University-Industry Research: Benefits• Establishment of long-term industry partnerships for future research. • Students reported greater exposure through attending business meetings

and industry-related professional development• Mutually increased access to resources, data, and facilities • Graduates are considered “industry ready” and considered more

marketable for industry employment• Transition to open innovation framework in development of intellectual

propertyUniversity-Industry Research: Challenges• Supervisors reported a need for clarity of the rigors of research with

industry partners; Use of “fast and furious” methods of research in industry practice

• Disruptions among industry stakeholders and supervisor or student can pose long-lasting damage to future projects

• Supervisors report time-consuming negotiations and project formulation

Presented at the International Conference for Doctoral Supervision, March 2015

SUPERVISION AND PEDAGOGY

SUPERVISION IN UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIPS

FURTHER STUDY

Pedagogy is the active engagement by both supervisor and student to produce knowledge together.

The Focus of Formal Supervisor Development Programs•Policies governing research training•Project management strategies•Supervisor/student relationships•Supervision of writing

Three Active Players of Supervisory Pedagogy:•Student, Supervisor, and KnowledgeBroad Models of Supervision:• Traditional One-on-One Dyadic Supervision• Team Supervision with a panel of supervisors and one student• Group Supervision with one supervisor and several studentsAccording to Guerin et al. (2015), an increase in the use of team supervision among universities allows for several supervisors to monitor student progress and avoid pitfalls of reliance on a single individual for supervision.

Supervisory Relationships • Faculty identify the need for pastoral care, but reported extensive

supervision that emerges outside of the workplace is unsustainable and lacks balance

• Supervisors found success in establishing a relationship that does not reach beyond the research, with focus on developing the student as a researcher

SUPERVISION IN RESEARCH

REFERENCES

Our initial review of the literature presented has identified areas in which we would like to study and develop more research. As partnerships and collaborative relationships between industry and academia grow, a framework for

supervision will allow for greater ease in negotiating and monitoring related projects. Existing questions include how the industry supervisor can work with the university doctoral supervisor to ensure the development of both the student and research. Further, different expectations in rigor and ethics can be researched to identify differences of involved

partners, and common ground to resolve potential challenges. In supervision practices in publishing there seemed to be a lack of evidence of the success of the practices discussed. While supervisors were able to highlight the work they did with their students it may have been beneficial to hear about some of the successes that were seen as a result of these practices. In addition, the research behind supervising student researchers seemed to focus largely on the supervisor’s perspective and less on the student’s perspective. We were unable to locate a substantial amount of research and data on how students felt they were being supervised while conducting research and what the benefits and/or drawbacks to that part of the relationship might have been. Conducting this kind of research further might provide insight into the

practices that students are most identifying as contributory to their success.

The Faculty Perspective: Pros• Encouraging doctoral student to publish• Manuscript Writing• Submission Process• Handling Feedback

The only mentioned failure in this literature review by a doctoral supervisor was a present lack of publishing based on research by doctoral candidates.

The Students Perspective: Pros• Faculty are able to assist in selecting the right journals• Faculty are able to help students learn the submission process• Faculty help students respond to criticism• Students saw an increase in research visibility• Students saw an increased opportunity of publication by writing with

their faculty mentor

Students saw that some drawbacks of publishing with a mentor or supervisor were that they oftentimes felt overworked or exploited and that they did a majority of the research while splitting the recognition more evenly.

Students also felt that they had to rely on a positive relationship with their supervisor in order for the relationship to be fruitful.